I don't endorse plagiarism
That's like me not endorsing cookies.
Quote
Banned from displaying signatures until May 14, 2021, 12:52:45 AM
Report 1 plagiarist for every 10 of your anti-establishment rants, can't be that hard.
Topic: What is the reason to give me the red trust??? (Read 984 times)
That's like me not endorsing cookies.
Report 1 plagiarist for every 10 of your anti-establishment rants, can't be that hard.
Constantly attacking those who you perceive as having wronged you is not going to change the fact that you're a plagiarising ICO-bumping maggot. Stop derailing threads with your butthurt.
I just mentioned a fact. I hope that doesn't count as something worth of red trust from an abusers perspective which you are trying to defend.
What fact is that, hacker? Everything you posted was opinion and summarization. :/
I wonder how much that legendary account was worth that he just lost..
Well that escalated quickly...
I am not sure what exactly happened here after reported posts and receiving negative feedback but member Amel is now banned from forum:
https://bpip.org/Profile?id=519514
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/amel-519514
I am not sure what exactly happened here after reported posts and receiving negative feedback but member Amel is now banned from forum:
https://bpip.org/Profile?id=519514
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/amel-519514
He is banned because of plagiarism found by HCP
You can check his post here -> https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.55316754
Well that escalated quickly...
I am not sure what exactly happened here after reported posts and receiving negative feedback but member Amel is now banned from forum:
https://bpip.org/Profile?id=519514
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/amel-519514
I am not sure what exactly happened here after reported posts and receiving negative feedback but member Amel is now banned from forum:
https://bpip.org/Profile?id=519514
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/amel-519514
I just mentioned a fact. I hope that doesn't count as something worth of red trust from an abusers perspective which you are trying to defend.
OP got what he deserves. Almost every poster here said that the negative feedback wasn't appropriate in this case since spam is under moderation policy. Sounds against the feedback doesn't me anyone supporting the OP since its pretty sure he a spammer. Sound against OP doesn't mean someone supporting the feedbacks. I agree with them who are assuming the account was changed hand. Even the English writing style completely different than a year ago posts. Since the case has closed by banning OP, so we can avoid further discussion or attacking someone regarding this case. I think the moderator should lock this thread.
Constantly attacking those who you perceive as having wronged you
That's about where you should have hit the pause button and asked yourself "Do you want to continue?" instead of continuing with this:
Quote
is not going to change the fact that you're a plagiarising ICO-bumping maggot. Stop derailing threads with your butthurt.
It's off topic and hijacking the thread.
Please stop.
I just mentioned a fact. I hope that doesn't count as something worth of red trust from an abusers perspective which you are trying to defend.
Posting in threads without reading them is another thing that you should really stop doing. I'm not defending anybody here and you would know that if you read the fucking thread. You could have also learned that this thread is not about you but about another plagiarising shithead. Plagiarism is cancer and while red trust is not appropriate in this case, nor is this grandstanding and indignation from the likes of you. Shut up and start reporting spammers since you've been giving a completely undeserved second chance.
Nice spin, but I don't endorse plagiarism or even supported it in this thread anywhere. Also, the plagiarism thing was discovered after the red trust was given anyways.
I just mentioned a fact. I hope that doesn't count as something worth of red trust from an abusers perspective which you are trying to defend.
Posting in threads without reading them is another thing that you should really stop doing. I'm not defending anybody here and you would know that if you read the fucking thread. You could have also learned that this thread is not about you but about another plagiarising shithead. Plagiarism is cancer and while red trust is not appropriate in this case, nor is this grandstanding and indignation from the likes of you. Shut up and start reporting spammers since you've been giving a completely undeserved second chance.
~
Constantly attacking those who you perceive as having wronged you is not going to change the fact that you're a plagiarising ICO-bumping maggot. Stop derailing threads with your butthurt.
I just mentioned a fact. I hope that doesn't count as something worth of red trust from an abusers perspective which you are trying to defend.
~
Constantly attacking those who you perceive as having wronged you is not going to change the fact that you're a plagiarising ICO-bumping maggot. Stop derailing threads with your butthurt.
Previously theymos has told that DT users who use the trust system to negative tag a person for their posting habits will not longer remain a DT member.
I have nothing personally against JollyGood , but I wonder if any of the DT members who have it on their list have removed (distrust) him due to inappropriate use of negative feedback? Personally, I felt on my skin that such abuse is punished by other DT members very expressively without any hesitation.
No, mostly because he didn’t do it to some poor undeserving user out of some personal vendetta to destroy their account..
He was right, even though he used the wrong tag button..
He has done it around dozens of time previously out of his personal vendetta. It's clear that he has too much of an ego and likes to shit on others user trust wall without any solid reason's for doing so.
He always uses wrong tag button to show whom he puts on ignore. ( but can't stand by his words anyways). Maybe this is more clear now.
I have nothing personally against JollyGood , but I wonder if any of the DT members who have it on their list have removed (distrust) him due to inappropriate use of negative feedback?
He's a Jolly Good guy.
I feel many DT1 members are kind of "holding their breath" on changing any trust lists right now. Covid and the election... something is in the air. :/
@JollyGood you need to revise this feedback
I think there is no point in revising or doing anything with @Amel anymore.He's left the forum for good: Amel (Archived),
unless there is a miracle.
@Amel: Have a nice day out there.
It really doesn't matter if the account is banned or not but the negative feedback should be revised. As everyone else said, this is inappropriate use of the trust/feedback system. I'm not talking about if the user is a spammer or not, the right approach was already followed since the account is banned, and that was what should have been done at the first place. Hope that @JollyGood will avoid doing this in the future.
Exactly, I am guided by the first post in the thread where OP started a discussion about correct/incorrect red tag. Is no matter is it about Amel or someone other.
Previously theymos has told that DT users who use the trust system to negative tag a person for their posting habits will not longer remain a DT member.
I have nothing personally against JollyGood , but I wonder if any of the DT members who have it on their list have removed (distrust) him due to inappropriate use of negative feedback? Personally, I felt on my skin that such abuse is punished by other DT members very expressively without any hesitation.
No, mostly because he didn’t do it to some poor undeserving user out of some personal vendetta to destroy their account..
He was right, even though he used the wrong tag button..
Many DT make much more abusive tags and get away with it over much worse circumstances like personal feuds..
Wrong use of tag but not very egregious or malicious..
Jolly is a good member, and he did a great job in the fight against fraudsters. things like this can make him better and more precise in leaving feedback. I know he's corrected his rating a couple of times already after a suggestion, which is a good sign and means that he is still trying to be rational when using trust system over Bitcointalk.
I will leave it still on my trust list but I will certainly pay attention to his feedbacks, in the end, it is the same with everyone else on my list whom I have trusted.
Previously theymos has told that DT users who use the trust system to negative tag a person for their posting habits will not longer remain a DT member.
I have nothing personally against JollyGood , but I wonder if any of the DT members who have it on their list have removed (distrust) him due to inappropriate use of negative feedback? Personally, I felt on my skin that such abuse is punished by other DT members very expressively without any hesitation.
No, mostly because he didn’t do it to some poor undeserving user out of some personal vendetta to destroy their account..
He was right, even though he used the wrong tag button..
Many DT make much more abusive tags and get away with it over much worse circumstances like personal feuds..
Wrong use of tag but not very egregious or malicious..
Previously theymos has told that DT users who use the trust system to negative tag a person for their posting habits will not longer remain a DT member.
I have nothing personally against JollyGood , but I wonder if any of the DT members who have it on their list have removed (distrust) him due to inappropriate use of negative feedback? Personally, I felt on my skin that such abuse is punished by other DT members very expressively without any hesitation.
Just my opinion,
Previously theymos has told that DT users who use the trust system to negative tag a person for their posting habits will not longer remain a DT member.
So Jolly should take better steps in controlling his red paint gun if they wishes to keep their status intact and also because we need them to tag scammers and continue what Jolly does good.
Reporting to the moderator is what should have been done in the first place instead of giving a negative trust. This is the job of the mods to do so let them do it. Division of duties is important here.
In any case, this one is over now, but have any of you informed irfan_pak about it? I found the OP's name still in the campaign list. If not, I will do it.
Previously theymos has told that DT users who use the trust system to negative tag a person for their posting habits will not longer remain a DT member.
So Jolly should take better steps in controlling his red paint gun if they wishes to keep their status intact and also because we need them to tag scammers and continue what Jolly does good.
Reporting to the moderator is what should have been done in the first place instead of giving a negative trust. This is the job of the mods to do so let them do it. Division of duties is important here.
In any case, this one is over now, but have any of you informed irfan_pak about it? I found the OP's name still in the campaign list. If not, I will do it.
@JollyGood you need to revise this feedback
I think there is no point in revising or doing anything with @Amel anymore.He's left the forum for good: Amel (Archived),
unless there is a miracle.
@Amel: Have a nice day out there.
It really doesn't matter if the account is banned or not but the negative feedback should be revised. As everyone else said, this is inappropriate use of the trust/feedback system. I'm not talking about if the user is a spammer or not, the right approach was already followed since the account is banned, and that was what should have been done at the first place. Hope that @JollyGood will avoid doing this in the future.
@JollyGood you need to revise this feedback
I think there is no point in revising or doing anything with @Amel anymore.He's left the forum for good: Amel (Archived),
unless there is a miracle.
@Amel: Have a nice day out there.
Do you think the value of the second post is low 
No, that's not what I mean 'low quality'.I was thinking what did you reply in the topic of gambling, @JollyGood felt uncomfortable with your reply, I thought @JollyGood thought you didn't understand in the game you replied, that's why he warned you there.
I thought that was the problem, so @JollyGood got a little emotional and he thought you were challenging him and forbade you to post on the topic he created.
You should look for other gambling topics, that you really understand about the game to discuss it, that's what you should do before someone gets emotional, so it's not as complicated as it is today, actually the problems you are facing right now, You seek it, for yourself.
it is obvious that you have understood the basic JollyGood motive when they leave negative feedback to Amel, but in essence, it is still the wrong reason. Neutral is okay in case of any shitposter (I didn't research OP's posts) just to warn primarily signature campaign managers.
Based on this JG tag, I would expect him to neg tag campaign manager which accept shitposter or spammer in the campaign. In the end, they are the bigger culprits because they allow it and still pay for such posts.
@JollyGood you need to revise this feedback (and others similar if any) to prove that you fully understand how to trust system work and its real purpose. If you insist on the red tag this user, it seems here in this topic you have more serious reasons for that. some users have done a more investigation.
Jump to: